For the love of god, it's not like we haven't been down this road before. We've been razing sh*t and building stadiums downtown since the 60s. Where is the consistently-promised revival?DogtownBnR wrote:To get ahead, risks have to be taken. We sit here mulling over what STL could have been, so often. I just wish we could get something big done once and a while.
- 3,762
- 271
We've also let buildings sit dead in that area since the sixties.
Where's the promised revival?
Where's the promised revival?
Well, I was talking about the P-D's editorial, not the statements specifically made by Mr. Peacock, with which I tend to agree.urban_dilettante wrote:Greatest St. Louis wrote:Honestly, I agree completely with Mr. Peacock, and I didn't think there were any sad things in that article at all. I was expecting an overbearing soapbox waxing over how horrible paying for stadiums is for cities, and how bad of an idea this all is. Instead, it was a very balanced approach to the issue at hand, with good observations and input from people like Peacock.
Why would you expect "an overbearing soapbox waxing over how horrible paying for stadiums is for cities, and how bad of an idea this all is" from the guy that proposed the stadium?
And really? You don't think it's sad that he likens valid criticism of his thrown-together plan to negativity for the sake of negativity? Positive people couldn't possibly have anything critical to say about his plan, because logic? If I don't get my way I'm outta here? Sounds to me like a pretty standard tantrum from somebody who's used to getting his way. Sad, indeed.
And I absolutely believe that much of the criticism of his plan, valid for not, has manifested itself as negativity for the sake of negativity.
- 1,868
Formerly dead buildings have been getting revived all over the place, including north of Downtown.Greatest St. Louis wrote:We've also let buildings sit dead in that area since the sixties.
Where's the promised revival?
- 8,155
^ yeah, I just don't get that.... sure the area has a lot of gray-scape and some vacant buildings but it also has rehabbed buildings, functioning businesses and even a couple Saint Louis institutions. And the revival of Saint Louis historic buildings really only began in earnest about 15 years ago and was interrupted by the Great Recession.... we're still in the infancy of the rediscovery of our city yet too many people appear all-too-willing to slash and burn whole swaths of it for dubious, 20th c. concepts about what makes cities work.
- 3,767
I've never been one to believe a stadium will revive Downtown or get it over the hump. They only generate traffic, if your lucky, 50 dates year, assuming MLS is part of the picture. However, I don't see anybody lining up to save those buildings on the North Riverfront. Believe me, I am 100% for preserving any historic building, but what happens when they are beyond repair and we have nothing but a huge vacant lot, with collapsing buildings that cannot be reused?
I hated to see the recent Cupples demo, but it was apparently beyond repair or at least beyond what any developer is willing to put into it to save it. Who's to say, these buildings sit for another decade or two, they don't fall naturally and the brick thieves swoop in and destroy what's left. My point, if there is a viable development plan in this area, I'm all for it. I'm all for saving these historic structures. I just don't see anyone stepping up to save them. Sadly, this is the case all over our City. If redevelopment were a given, I'd be all for a green - field stadium elsewhere in the metro area. We can revisit this topic down the road, if the stadium does not pass. We'll see if anyone steps up to develop that area.
I hated to see the recent Cupples demo, but it was apparently beyond repair or at least beyond what any developer is willing to put into it to save it. Who's to say, these buildings sit for another decade or two, they don't fall naturally and the brick thieves swoop in and destroy what's left. My point, if there is a viable development plan in this area, I'm all for it. I'm all for saving these historic structures. I just don't see anyone stepping up to save them. Sadly, this is the case all over our City. If redevelopment were a given, I'd be all for a green - field stadium elsewhere in the metro area. We can revisit this topic down the road, if the stadium does not pass. We'll see if anyone steps up to develop that area.
- 271
+1DogtownBnR wrote:I've never been one to believe a stadium will revive Downtown or get it over the hump. They only generate traffic, if your lucky, 50 dates year, assuming MLS is part of the picture. However, I don't see anybody lining up to save those buildings on the North Riverfront. Believe me, I am 100% for preserving any historic building, but what happens when they are beyond repair and we have nothing but a huge vacant lot, with collapsing buildings that cannot be reused?
I hated to see the recent Cupples demo, but it was apparently beyond repair or at least beyond what any developer is willing to put into it to save it. Who's to say, these buildings sit for another decade or two, they don't fall naturally and the brick thieves swoop in and destroy what's left. My point, if there is a viable development plan in this area, I'm all for it. I'm all for saving these historic structures. I just don't see anyone stepping up to save them. Sadly, this is the case all over our City. If redevelopment were a given, I'd be all for a green - field stadium elsewhere in the metro area. We can revisit this topic down the road, if the stadium does not pass. We'll see if anyone steps up to develop that area.
If the Rams leave town, I'll probably start looking elsewhere for living and working. Plenty of cities offer essentially the same overall experience that St. Louis does, plus they have an NFL team. Maybe I'll move back here if/when that area north of downtown is some thriving mixed-use urbanist wet dream. I'll probably be retirement age by then, assuming it ever even happens, but it is what it is.
If a losing football team is the only thing standing between you and moving out of STL, I think it's pretty clear you want to leave STL with or without a team.+1
If the Rams leave town, I'll probably start looking elsewhere for living and working. Plenty of cities offer essentially the same overall experience that St. Louis does, plus they have an NFL team. Maybe I'll move back here if/when that area north of downtown is some thriving mixed-use urbanist wet dream. I'll probably be retirement age by then, assuming it ever even happens, but it is what it is.
- 271
I wouldn't say that. It's not that I want to leave, it's that nothing specifically is tying me down here. And if I'm gonna live somewhere like here, there are many other cities more or less like it, except they also have an NFL team.olvidarte wrote:If a losing football team is the only thing standing between you and moving out of STL, I think it's pretty clear you want to leave STL with or without a team.+1
If the Rams leave town, I'll probably start looking elsewhere for living and working. Plenty of cities offer essentially the same overall experience that St. Louis does, plus they have an NFL team. Maybe I'll move back here if/when that area north of downtown is some thriving mixed-use urbanist wet dream. I'll probably be retirement age by then, assuming it ever even happens, but it is what it is.
- 8,155
People are stepping up to develop that area. Peacock is kind of an a-hole for not acknowledging the significant investments of a number of people. As for the warehouses by the river, none have Cupples 7 level deterioration issues.... in fact quite the opposite. (The warehouse at O'Fallon and Lewis across from the state-of-the-art Kerr Foundation Building had some issues a few years ago but I believe those were addressed by the McGowan Bros.)DogtownBnR wrote:I've never been one to believe a stadium will revive Downtown or get it over the hump. They only generate traffic, if your lucky, 50 dates year, assuming MLS is part of the picture. However, I don't see anybody lining up to save those buildings on the North Riverfront. Believe me, I am 100% for preserving any historic building, but what happens when they are beyond repair and we have nothing but a huge vacant lot, with collapsing buildings that cannot be reused?
I hated to see the recent Cupples demo, but it was apparently beyond repair or at least beyond what any developer is willing to put into it to save it. Who's to say, these buildings sit for another decade or two, they don't fall naturally and the brick thieves swoop in and destroy what's left. My point, if there is a viable development plan in this area, I'm all for it. I'm all for saving these historic structures. I just don't see anyone stepping up to save them. Sadly, this is the case all over our City. If redevelopment were a given, I'd be all for a green - field stadium elsewhere in the metro area. We can revisit this topic down the road, if the stadium does not pass. We'll see if anyone steps up to develop that area.
By a number of accounts, residential in the Landing is imminent. Once that starts to develop, it's only a matter of time before riverfront living hits the only place it can easily go, north to this prime area. And GRG and other investments will only serve to speed up that timeline It may not become the next Cortex-like mixed-use "wet dream" as someone said, but it will become an increasingly healthy and unique neighborhood if we don't obliterate it.
St. Louis needs to retain an NFL team to remain relevant.
It's similar to how many students only look at colleges that have Division 1 sports, etc.
The loss of NFL will be a big blow to STL and another step towards this city no longer being relevant.
It's similar to how many students only look at colleges that have Division 1 sports, etc.
The loss of NFL will be a big blow to STL and another step towards this city no longer being relevant.
You're not the first person I've seen suggest they'd leave if an NFL team isn't here. All I'll say is live and let live.Greatest St. Louis wrote:I wouldn't say that. It's not that I want to leave, it's that nothing specifically is tying me down here. And if I'm gonna live somewhere like here, there are many other cities more or less like it, except they also have an NFL team.olvidarte wrote:If a losing football team is the only thing standing between you and moving out of STL, I think it's pretty clear you want to leave STL with or without a team.+1
If the Rams leave town, I'll probably start looking elsewhere for living and working. Plenty of cities offer essentially the same overall experience that St. Louis does, plus they have an NFL team. Maybe I'll move back here if/when that area north of downtown is some thriving mixed-use urbanist wet dream. I'll probably be retirement age by then, assuming it ever even happens, but it is what it is.
But I can't wrap my head around a sports team being that important, and I say that as someone who has made sports my priority for most of my life and am a diehard fan of the St. Louis teams.
I wish I could say this next part without it coming off like a cheap shot, but I fear I can't. But I wonder if maybe we'd be better off if the St. Louisans that thought this sort of development were essential to living here were not here to make decisions for the region and city. I think it's priorities like these that drag us down.
I hope you'll stay, though, because I think you've always expressed good urban appreciation. I think you may be victim to your fandom, and I do understand that. I'm always just a step away from being sucked back onto that side.
Although, as I mentioned yesterday, I watched League of Denial, and man it makes it a lot easier to just let go of this forsaken league of people.
And as I mentioned above, how are the Harvards and the Princetons of the world doing with out high-level football teams? Have the Mizzous and Alabamas of the world taken them over as the premier schools in the country yet?jakektu wrote:St. Louis needs to retain an NFL team to remain relevant.
It's similar to how many students only look at colleges that have Division 1 sports, etc.
The loss of NFL will be a big blow to STL and another step towards this city no longer being relevant.
I've known 100s of grad students who have gone or stayed. By far the #1 reason is a job. Followed by
A relationship
Family
Wanting to be "home"
Wanting to be in a "real" city (dense, mass transit)
Wanting to be near the ocean
they've never cited NFl or pro sports in general as a factor.
A relationship
Family
Wanting to be "home"
Wanting to be in a "real" city (dense, mass transit)
Wanting to be near the ocean
they've never cited NFl or pro sports in general as a factor.
- 271
No offense taken, here. If my (and others' like me) getting out of the way will make St. Louis better in the long run, then godspeed. I'll find what I'm looking for all in due time, and I hope St. Louis does, too.jstriebel wrote:You're not the first person I've seen suggest they'd leave if an NFL team isn't here. All I'll say is live and let live.Greatest St. Louis wrote:I wouldn't say that. It's not that I want to leave, it's that nothing specifically is tying me down here. And if I'm gonna live somewhere like here, there are many other cities more or less like it, except they also have an NFL team.olvidarte wrote: If a losing football team is the only thing standing between you and moving out of STL, I think it's pretty clear you want to leave STL with or without a team.
But I can't wrap my head around a sports team being that important, and I say that as someone who has made sports my priority for most of my life and am a diehard fan of the St. Louis teams.
I wish I could say this next part without it coming off like a cheap shot, but I fear I can't. But I wonder if maybe we'd be better off if the St. Louisans that thought this sort of development were essential to living here were not here to make decisions for the region and city. I think it's priorities like these that drag us down.
I hope you'll stay, though, because I think you've always expressed good urban appreciation. I think you may be victim to your fandom, and I do understand that. I'm always just a step away from being sucked back onto that side.
Although, as I mentioned yesterday, I watched League of Denial, and man it makes it a lot easier to just let go of this forsaken league of people.
The truth is, as someone who's lived downtown for years, I just find St. Louis relatively boring during the cold weather months. I never much got into hockey, so following the Blues doesn't do it for me. I go to some concerts, some shows, etc. to pass time during the cold weather, but there's just not much to do. The streets are relatively dead, there aren't people milling about and eating and drinking on restaurant and bar patios, Forest Park, while beautiful, is not as fun to visit when it's 20 degrees, I dunno. I feel like other than working, following Rams/NFL football and attending charity galas, I don't do a heck of a whole lot in St. Louis from November through February.
St. Louis during the warm weather months is a different animal. Even if you don't care for baseball, there's just way more going on, it's more fun to visit Forest Park, there are more events, more outdoor things to do, etc.
I need me an NFL team to get me through the cold weather months in this town (or another like it).
Unfortunately, St Louis isn't a Harvard or Princeton. If it were, then losing the NFL wouldn't be a big deal.jstriebel wrote:And as I mentioned above, how are the Harvards and the Princetons of the world doing with out high-level football teams? Have the Mizzous and Alabamas of the world taken them over as the premier schools in the country yet?jakektu wrote:St. Louis needs to retain an NFL team to remain relevant.
It's similar to how many students only look at colleges that have Division 1 sports, etc.
The loss of NFL will be a big blow to STL and another step towards this city no longer being relevant.
- 271
Yeah, I guess for me, it's something likequincunx wrote:I've known 100s of grad students who have gone or stayed. By far the #1 reason is a job. Followed by
A relationship
Family
Wanting to be "home"
Wanting to be in a "real" city (dense, mass transit)
Wanting to be near the ocean
they've never cited NFl or pro sports in general as a factor.
1. Job
(as you've said, there's considerable distance between #1 and the rest of the list)
2. Stuff to do
That's really it.
And like I explained in my last post, the NFL cuts seriously into my "stuff to do" when it's cold here.
Just so I can get an understanding, are you a season ticket holder/do you go to most of the games?
If not, would you be unable to identify with another team if there wasn't one in your home town? (I wouldn't be either, so I get that. I'm just curious.)
If not, would you be unable to identify with another team if there wasn't one in your home town? (I wouldn't be either, so I get that. I'm just curious.)
- 271
I go to most of the games with friends and/or family. For me, the live gameday experience has always been part-and-parcel of following the NFL.
For me who is a young, single, educated person. Having sports is a big part of my life and how I identify with STL. I wear the jersey with pride.
I admit I haven't been to a Ram's game in years but I do watch them play on tv at different bars a few times a year (a couple random sundays games and any Monday or Thrusday night games.) There are a lot of people who do this too. You don't have to be a season ticket holder to enjoy the games in STL. If they left, I would stop going out to watch games or follow any team. So STL resturants would lose business from me if there wasn't a team here.
I don't care how anyone else would feel. This is my experience.
I admit I haven't been to a Ram's game in years but I do watch them play on tv at different bars a few times a year (a couple random sundays games and any Monday or Thrusday night games.) There are a lot of people who do this too. You don't have to be a season ticket holder to enjoy the games in STL. If they left, I would stop going out to watch games or follow any team. So STL resturants would lose business from me if there wasn't a team here.
I don't care how anyone else would feel. This is my experience.
I don't disagree with you guys, I was just curious what your experience was.
I'm telling you, I'm a diehard fan, myself. I get the experience. I was just curious.
Even as a diehard, I just can't get my priorities in that order, though. Just don't see it as a good investment. Not the way it's currently structured.
But I'm still not sure it matters how any of us feel. I don't know if there's anything St. Louis can do to keep the Rams here at this point. We're victim to a bad lease, and one of the few owners in sports that doesn't prefer to stay where they are.
There's been plenty of teams that could have tried to go to LA. All have preferred to try to find a solution in their home market first. Most have been successful. The other remaining owners haven't yet bolted. Kroenke is the only one trying to bolt without first trying to stay.
I'm telling you, I'm a diehard fan, myself. I get the experience. I was just curious.
Even as a diehard, I just can't get my priorities in that order, though. Just don't see it as a good investment. Not the way it's currently structured.
But I'm still not sure it matters how any of us feel. I don't know if there's anything St. Louis can do to keep the Rams here at this point. We're victim to a bad lease, and one of the few owners in sports that doesn't prefer to stay where they are.
There's been plenty of teams that could have tried to go to LA. All have preferred to try to find a solution in their home market first. Most have been successful. The other remaining owners haven't yet bolted. Kroenke is the only one trying to bolt without first trying to stay.
You're right. But I'd suggest this might be in part because of the priorities we've placed on things. Harvard and Princeton didn't just by chance become amazing academic schools with mediocre athletics. It happened because of the things they put value on.jakektu wrote:Unfortunately, St Louis isn't a Harvard or Princeton. If it were, then losing the NFL wouldn't be a big deal.jstriebel wrote:And as I mentioned above, how are the Harvards and the Princetons of the world doing with out high-level football teams? Have the Mizzous and Alabamas of the world taken them over as the premier schools in the country yet?jakektu wrote:St. Louis needs to retain an NFL team to remain relevant.
It's similar to how many students only look at colleges that have Division 1 sports, etc.
The loss of NFL will be a big blow to STL and another step towards this city no longer being relevant.
- 271
I hear ya.jstriebel wrote:I don't disagree with you guys, I was just curious what your experience was.
I'm telling you, I'm a diehard fan, myself. I get the experience. I was just curious.
Even as a diehard, I just can't get my priorities in that order, though. Just don't see it as a good investment. Not the way it's currently structured.
But I'm still not sure it matters how any of us feel. I don't know if there's anything St. Louis can do to keep the Rams here at this point. We're victim to a bad lease, and one of the few owners in sports that doesn't prefer to stay where they are.
There's been plenty of teams that could have tried to go to LA. All have preferred to try to find a solution in their home market first. Most have been successful. The other remaining owners haven't yet bolted. Kroenke is the only one trying to bolt without first trying to stay.
For me, as long as Peacock's working on the stadium plan, the dream's still alive. I'll be there on gameday.
Let's be honest: if we're talking about the "Ivy League" of cities (Let's say it's New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago, but you could really add whoever I'm missing), then I think those cities usually became what they are because of happenstance and timing, not because the cities were like "we'll do xyz, and it'll make us one of the indispensable American cities."jstriebel wrote:You're right. But I'd suggest this might be in part because of the priorities we've placed on things. Harvard and Princeton didn't just by chance become amazing academic schools with mediocre athletics. It happened because of the things they put value on.jakektu wrote:Unfortunately, St Louis isn't a Harvard or Princeton. If it were, then losing the NFL wouldn't be a big deal.jstriebel wrote:
And as I mentioned above, how are the Harvards and the Princetons of the world doing with out high-level football teams? Have the Mizzous and Alabamas of the world taken them over as the premier schools in the country yet?
Hell, St. Louis was one of those cities for the longest time. The problem is, America wasn't yet fully-developed as a country, and what made us indispensable was supplanted by rail, which was later supplanted by air travel. By the time airports became a thing, too much investment and population had already abandoned St. Louis. We missed the boat (no pun intended) because we just peaked too early, in the grand scheme of things.
Make no mistake, when I talk about my desire to keep the Rams here, it's because of my desire for there to be more stuff to do in St. Louis, particularly from the end of October, when it gets cold and everything here kinda slows down, until the beginning of March, when it warms up and things pick up again.
It's not because it's important economically for the city, or as part of a bid to keep St. Louis "relevant."
